Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

KARAM v. GARLAND

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided September 30, 2022No. 1:21-cv-00915

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency	USCIS Read by a model After conducting an interview and completing security background checks, USCIS officers render a decision on a refugee application.
Form or filing	DS-7656 Read by a model See DS-7656, Affidavit of Relationship at 1, ECF No. 25-3.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model who seeks to compel Defendants to render a decision regarding the eligibility of his mother and siblings to be admitted to the United States as refugees.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Pending before the Court is Defendants’ [21] Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model This case shall be dismissed.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
Months pending	39.7 months from the application to the suit; 57.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model In December 2017, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Relationship with USRAP, initiating the process of having Ms. Dech and her other children come to the United States under the “P-3” refugee resettlement program.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model In sum, the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision applies to the pace of adjudication, precluding Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay claim from judicial review.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:21-cv-00915
Filed: April 5, 2021
Ended: September 30, 2022
Suit's filing to its end: 543 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70

D.C. Circuit, October 24, 1984. Whether agency delay is unreasonable turns on six factors: a rule of reason, any statutory timetable, the human welfare interests at stake, the effect of expediting on competing priorities, the interests prejudiced by delay, and no need to find impropriety.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094

D.C. Circuit, August 8, 2003. A claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed a matter arises under the APA and § 1331, and the TRAC factors decide whether the delay is unreasonable.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849

D.C. Circuit, July 8, 2008. Mandamus to compel unreasonably delayed agency action is an extraordinary remedy guided by the TRAC factors, granted here after years of unexplained delay.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office, 80 F.4th 330

D.C. Circuit, August 18, 2023. EB-5 petition delays of roughly four years were not unreasonable under TRAC where USCIS adjudicates in a rule-of-reason order and expediting the plaintiffs would only move them ahead of others in the queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
American Hospital Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183

D.C. Circuit, February 9, 2016. A delay claim under the Mandamus Act requires a clear duty, a clear right and no adequate alternative remedy, and the TRAC factors then decide whether the delay warrants relief, with a statutory deadline weighing heavily.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Blinken, 103 F.4th 807

D.C. Circuit, June 7, 2024. TRAC governs visa-processing delay claims in district court, a court that finds unreasonable delay may set adjudication deadlines, and expediting a whole class in queue order is not line-jumping.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-28; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 49 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.